Adaptation of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory into Polish and its testing on a clinical population of tinnitus sufferers

<p><i>Objective</i>: To describe how the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) was translated into Polish (THI-POL) and to present psychometric data on how well it performed in a clinical population of tinnitus sufferers. <i>Design</i>: The original version of THI was adapted into Polish. The reliability of THI-POL was investigated using test–retest, Cronbach’s alpha, endorsement rate and item–total correlation. Construct validity and convergent validity were also assessed based on confirmatory factor analysis, inter-item correlation and Pearson product-moment correlations using subscale A (Tinnitus) of the Tinnitus and Hearing Survey (THS-POL); divergent validity was checked using subscale B (Hearing) of THS-POL. <i>Study sample</i>: A group of 167 adults filled in THI-POL twice over their three-day hospitalisation period. <i>Results</i>: Test–retest reliability for the total THI-POL scores was strong (<i>r</i> = 0.91). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the total score was high (<i>r</i> = 0.95), confirming the questionnaire’s stability. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and inter-item correlation did not confirm the three-factor model. Convergent validity from the Tinnitus subscale of THS showed a positive strong (<i>r</i> = 0.75) correlation. Divergent validity showed only a moderate correlation. All analyses were statistically significant (<i>p</i> <  0.01). <i>Conclusions</i>: THI-POL is a valid and reliable self-administered tool, which allows the overall tinnitus handicap of Polish-speaking patients to be effectively assessed.</p

Significant effect of Pure Tone Average thresholds of the better ear on the residual percentile rank.

<p>Error bars indicate +/− two standard errors of the mean for each pure tone average range (approximately equivalent to the 95% confidence interval for each mean value shown on the graph; if two mean values fall within one error bar, then the means are not significantly different (p>0.05)). The numbers next to each symbol indicate the number of data points in that range.</p

Significant effect of percentage of active electrodes on the residual percentile rank.

<p>Error bars indicate +/− two standard errors of the mean for each range (approximately equivalent to the 95% confidence interval for each mean value shown on the graph; if two mean values fall within one error bar, then the means are not significantly different (p>0.05)). The numbers next to each symbol indicate the number of data points in that range.</p

Absolute numbers of the various etiologies defined in the dataset.

<p>These etiologies are classified by poorest to best speech outcome in quiet with a CI. ANSD: Auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder. “Miscellaneous” included non-genetic congenital etiologies, cerebral ischemia, drepanocytosis, cephalic trauma without temporal bone fracture, etc. CI recipients presenting with the etiologies encompassed between the two vertical dotted lines showed performances around average, i.e. 50% of speech recognition (not statistically different from average). CI recipients presenting with etiologies on the left part of the dotted lines performed significantly below average. CI recipients presenting with etiologies on the right part of the dotted lines performed significantly better than average. Adapted from Blamey et al (in press).</p

Results of the new GLM analysis using ranked speech scores in noise with a CI as the dependent variable.

<p>Results of the new GLM analysis using ranked speech scores in noise with a CI as the dependent variable.</p

Significant effect of brands of CI on the residual percentile rank.

<p>Error bars indicate +/− two standard errors of the mean for each CI brand (approximately equivalent to the 95% confidence interval for each mean value shown on the graph; if two mean values fall within one error bar, then the means are not significantly different (p>0.05)). The numbers of data points for each brand were not indicated to avoid potential identification of the individual brands.</p

Three-stage model of mean expected auditory performance ranking over time for a hypothetical “average CI recipient”.

<p>The detailed description of the Figure is in the <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0048739#s3" target="_blank">Results</a> section. mHL: moderate hearing loss; s/p HL: severe to profound hearing loss, HA: hearind aid.</p

Results from the 15 five-factor GLM analyses.

<p>Results from the 15 five-factor GLM analyses.</p